Why would a federal agency trash its
libraries?

It takes a special talent to
make the topic of library management controversial, but the
Environmental Protection Agency seems to have a real knack for
self-inflicted wounds. EPA gave itself a black eye and enraged
librarians throughout the country last year, when, without public
notice or congressional consultation, it began the process of
dismantling its network of 26 technical libraries.

The
original rationale EPA offered for slashing libraries was fiscal,
but it estimated only $1.5 million in savings from a more-than-$8
billion budget. It seemed a most curious economy.

The
closures started during the last few months of the
Republican-controlled Congress when budgetary oversight was not
high on the agenda. Aside from its claim of fiscal austerity, EPA
said the closures were part of an effort to “modernize”
its information systems by digitizing thousands of documents,
page-by-page. In the meantime, whole collections are now
inaccessible to both agency and outside researchers.

Last
October, for example, EPA abruptly closed its Washington, D.C.,
headquarters library and, shortly thereafter, shuttered its
world-renowned specialized library on the effects and properties of
chemicals. This latter action came with no notice to the scientists
who rely on those holdings to analyze new pesticides and toxic
chemicals. The sudden shutdown of the chemical library galvanized
public attention because it so clearly hampered needed research
without achieving any economic benefit. Then, after it had already
begun closing libraries, EPA discovered that copyright limitations
prevented it from digitizing materials not written by EPA staff. As
a result, hundreds of reports from the agency’s contractors,
as well as academic and corporate researchers, will remain in hard
copy, but housed in one of three “repositories.”

At times, EPA’s actions have taken on an Orwellian
cast, as thousands of documents and whole collections were hastily
dispersed to anyone willing to accept them. The three repositories
of documents have grown into giant information dumps whose contents
will remain un-cataloged for years to come, and in Chicago, the
largest regional library, furnishings — shelves, desks and
cabinets worth some $40,000 — were sold for $327.

Under pressure from a rising chorus from within Congress following
the 2006 elections, EPA temporarily halted further closures, but
much of the damage had already been done. More than a third of its
libraries have already downsized through what EPA calls
“de-accessioning,” which is defined as “the
removal of library materials from the physical collection.”

Significantly, the effects are also being felt outside
the scientific community. A briefing paper for the agency
enforcement director concludes that the loss of library access will
substantially impede investigations and prosecutions of polluters.
Citizen groups seeking information about local Superfund sites are
now finding reports unavailable — that is if the citizens
even knew of the existence of a report to ask for it.

Even the fiscal rationale for library closures came completely
unraveled after internal studies showed that full-library access
saves between $3-$7 in professional staff time for every dollar
invested. In other words, librarians locating documents for agency
specialists saved EPA far more than the total agency library
budget. Now, every EPA staff member will have to serve as his or
her own librarian. Moreover, the agency’s plan to digitize
documents page-by-page will certainly be far more expensive —
EPA says it has no cost estimate — than the paltry savings
from the closures of library collections.

The emerging
motive cited by critics of the EPA’s anti-library drive is
disquieting. A petition, signed by the presidents of 16 local
unions representing at least 10,000 EPA scientists, engineers,
environmental protection specialists and support staff, charged
that the intent behind the library closures was simply “to
suppress information on environmental and public-health related
topics.” But the effort to hamstring the EPA goes beyond
libraries and includes diverting money away from research, offering
early retirement to senior scientists and ultimately closing down
research laboratories. As its in-house scientific staff shrinks,
EPA is relying more and more heavily on corporate research in
making health and safety decisions. This self-lobotomy at EPA will
leave a public agency that is far less capable and independent, and
as we enter the final months of the Bush administration, EPA
managers seem determined to accelerate the self-destruction.

Jeff Ruch is a contributor to Writers on the
Range, a service of High Country News in Paonia,
Colorado (hcn.og). He is executive director of PEER, Public
Employees for Environmental Responsibility, in Washington,
D.C.